Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Canadian Law (1)
- Chile (1)
- Chile Law (1)
- Circuit Split (1)
- Comparative Law (1)
-
- Comparative law (1)
- Control enhancement mechanisms (1)
- Corporate governance (1)
- Disclosure rules (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Inter-American Law (1)
- Investor protection (1)
- Minority shareholders (1)
- Ownership structures (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Public corporations (1)
- Shareholders' agreements (1)
- Standing (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law and Race
Shareholders’ Agreements In Public Corporations In Chile: What Are We Missing Out?, Gonzalo Islas, Osvaldo Lagos, Iván Cerda
Shareholders’ Agreements In Public Corporations In Chile: What Are We Missing Out?, Gonzalo Islas, Osvaldo Lagos, Iván Cerda
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
Shareholders’ agreements are quite common in many jurisdictions. Theory and empirical evidence suggest that they may have a positive or a negative impact on corporate governance structures depending on companies’ characteristics and on the goals that these contracts pursue. Shareholders’ agreements may be used as Control Enhancement Mechanisms (CEM) allowing controllers to circumvent rules that favor minority investors. However, comparing to other CEM, in many countries information regarding them is scarce. Is it necessary that shareholders’ agreements in public corporations be fully informed?
We examine the case of Chile (a country that only requires to inform that a shareholder agreement …
The Detention Of Immigration Policy: How States Are Commandeering Dhs Enforcement Guidelines, Brianna Riguera
The Detention Of Immigration Policy: How States Are Commandeering Dhs Enforcement Guidelines, Brianna Riguera
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued immigration guidelines that de-emphasized detention and removal of non-citizens who, aside from being undocumented, are otherwise contributing members of communities across the United States. However, Arizona, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana challenged these guidelines, launching a nuanced legal dispute that concerned states standing under Article III, prosecutorial discretion, and nationwide preliminary injunctions. In United States v. Texas, the Court ruled 8-1 that the states lacked standing and reversed the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide injunction, but the majority opinion failed to address the other legal issues that are pressing on a rife debate about …